The Lord Chancellor, inconsequence of certain misrepresentations which had been circulated respecting himself and the Bill which he had introduced into that House for the reform of the administration of the Bankrupt-laws, was induced to move for several returns connected with the subject, the production of which would be the means of disabusing the public mind. He was both astonished and mortified, to find that an attack of a most singular and extraordinary character had been made upon him in a publication, by a learned friend—the venerable father of the Bar, and the father of Law Reform—for whose virtues, talents, and professional acquirements, he had always entertained the respect which they were so justly calculated to excite. As the attack did not ostensibly bear the name of his respected and venerable friend, he would abstain from naming him in that House, although the author was sufficiently indicated by the character, circumstances, and style of the attack, which he could account for only by attributing it to certain prejudices and theories upon the subject which his learned friend entertained. The charge was of a most extraordinary nature, for it was nothing less than that he had brought forward the Bill, and had pressed it through the House, because the effect of it would be, to put an 811 increase into his (the Lord Chancellor's) pocket of not less than 26,000l. a-year. His learned and venerable friend, in his explanation of this view of the subject, had stated, that in a political point of view patronage was of greater value to the Lord Chancellor than money, and that the Bill would be to him an increase of patronage to the extent of 26,000l. a-year. Other persons had repeated the charge, without this distinction between the patronage and the money. This charge was utterly unfounded, but it was not more so than another charge which had been made against him. It was asserted, that he had contrived by the Bill to provide for his Secretary a sinecure place, as Secretary of Bankruptcies, of the annual value of about 1,200l. This was a total misrepresentation of the case in every particular; for so far from the Bill giving any increase of income to his Secretary, it would actually decrease that person's salary by 1,200l. or even 1,300l. a-year. The person who would hold the office of Secretary of Bankrupts under the Bill, was now called his (the Lord Chancellor's) Secretary, and he had at the present moment an income of 2.500l. a-year, and all the Bill would do in relation to this officer would be, to deprive him of that income, and to substitute a place under another name, the total salary of which would be only 1,200l. To this strange perversion of the facts of the case was added, from a very different quarter, another statement equally without foundation. It had been put forth, that there was a strong difference of opinion between him and his noble friend at the head of his Majesty's Councils, with respect to a very material part of the Reform Bill, and this gross misrepresentation had arisen from an inaccurate and garbled statement of what had been said of the measure by him, when he had been addressing the House upon the subject of the Bill. What he had said upon that occasion was, that there was not the slightest difference of opinion upon the question of Reform between him and his noble friend, and he had then distinctly added, that not only was there not, but that there never had been, any such difference between them. This statement had been omitted, and the passage of his speech, from which this sentence had been left out, had been commented upon so as utterly to mislead the public mind on the subject. He would again declare, that there did not exist a 812 shade of difference of opinion between him and his noble friend upon that great and important measure. It was with a view to refute the serious charges that had been made against him by his venerable and learned friend, that he had risen to move for a return of the salary and emoluments of the Secretary of the Lord Chancellor. When the facts of the case had been so perverted, that a reduction of salary to the extent of 1,300l. a-year had been construed into the creation of a place which would increase the salary by 1,200l. a year, he almost feared that such erroneous impression proceeded from a source that would be impervious to any discipline which he could apply. The noble and learned Lord concluded by moving for a return "of the annual amount of fees received by the Commissioners of Bankrupt in London, by the Secretary of Bankrupts, by the Patentee in Bankruptcy, and by the Messengers to the Commissioners of Bankrupt, and also the expenses of assignments and bargains and sales; which expenses and several fees are proposed to be abolished by the Bill for establishing a new Court in Bankruptcy; also, an estimate of the establishment to be formed under the Act to establish a Court in Bankruptcy, stating the offices proposed to be created, and the pay of each, with their proposed pensions and retiring allowances, and from what funds to be paid; and also, an account of the expenses of the office of Secretary of Bankrupts upon the average of three years, ending 31st of March, 1830; distinguishing how much on the average was retained by the Secretary for his own use, how much was paid to the Deputy Secretary and each of the Clerks, and how much was applied to pay the general expenses of the office."—Ordered.